On Monday, a Bench constituted by the Chief Justice of India stayed a judgment delivered last month concerning the Aravalli range. While the substantive outcome may be welcome, the manner in which it was achieved merits closer scrutiny. At first glance, this may appear to be yet another instance of the Supreme Court revisiting its own orders, a phenomenon that has become increasingly frequent in recent months and warrants serious reflection. More troubling, however, is what this episode reveals: A growing pattern of procedural departure and opacity in the Court’s functioning.
Advertisement
A common justification offered for such recall or modification of judgments is historical precedent. It is often argued that courts have always identified errors and course-corrected, allowing laws to evolve. In a recent interview, a retired Supreme Court judge invoked A K Gopalan v State of Madras, being reconsidered in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, and I C Golaknath v State of Punjab in Kesavananda Bharati, to defend contemporary reconsideration. These comparisons, however, are imperfect. They overlook a critical distinction: Those reversals occurred after long intervals, through sustained doctrinal engagement and carefully reasoned judgments. They reflected constitutional evolution, not immediate improvisation. What distinguishes recent developments is therefore not the fact of reconsideration, but the speed, manner, and route through which it is increasingly undertaken.
This trend poses serious challenges to foundational principles that guide adjudication — consistency, predictability, and finality. These are not abstract ideals. They enable litigants to plan their conduct, guide lower courts in applying the law, and ensure that executive compliance with judicial decisions is not selective. When final judgments are easily unsettled, the legal system itself risks becoming unstable.